Edited by Casey J. Skeens
Dominique Strauss-Kahn Affair in New York: The Great Immunity Battle
Published in Liberation
(France) on 27 March 2012
by Fabrice Rousselot (link to original)
Have you ever heard of Section 21, Article 6 of the U.N.’s Convention on Privileges and Immunities of Specialized Agencies, which was signed in 1947?
No? Yet it is these few lines at the center of the great battle which will be waged this Wednesday by lawyers in the Bronx at the preliminary hearing for the civil suit brought by Nafissatou Diallo against Dominique Strauss-Kahn.
The hotel maid had filed a civil complaint of “a violent and sadistic attack” on 8 Aug. 2011, and Strauss-Kahn’s lawyers are effectively demanding that the case be dropped on grounds that the former head of the International Monetary Fund had total diplomatic immunity at the time of the alleged assault.
Why argue for immunity? Quite simply, that is the most direct way to try and have the case thrown out.
But one of the determining points that will be highlighted by Nafissatou Diallo’s lawyers is that Strauss-Kahn cannot claim immunity because he was in New York on private business.
This is where the aforementioned Section 21 of Article 6, referenced by Strauss-Kahn’s lawyer William Taylor in his 25-page motion, comes into play. In fact, it specifies that “the executive head of each specialized agency… shall be accorded… the privileges and immunities, exemptions and facilities accorded to diplomatic envoys, in accordance with international law.” But in the U.N.’s Convention on Privileges and Immunities that was signed in 1946, it is stipulated that these diplomatic envoys benefit from immunity “from legal process of every kind in respect of all acts done by them in their capacity as representative.”
And it is the expression “in their capacity as representative” that is the determining factor. The civil servants of IMF, for example, only benefit from immunity within the parameters of their official business.
Strauss-Kahn’s lawyers will therefore try to argue that Strauss-Kahn’s trip to New York was but the first stage of an “assignment,” during which he traveled Europe trying to gauge the response to the debt crisis in Greece.
Nafissatou Diallo’s lawyers will argue to the contrary, highlighting that his detour to Sofitel was unrelated to his official activities.
Then it will be up to Judge Mckeon to settle the argument….
No? Yet it is these few lines at the center of the great battle which will be waged this Wednesday by lawyers in the Bronx at the preliminary hearing for the civil suit brought by Nafissatou Diallo against Dominique Strauss-Kahn.
The hotel maid had filed a civil complaint of “a violent and sadistic attack” on 8 Aug. 2011, and Strauss-Kahn’s lawyers are effectively demanding that the case be dropped on grounds that the former head of the International Monetary Fund had total diplomatic immunity at the time of the alleged assault.
Why argue for immunity? Quite simply, that is the most direct way to try and have the case thrown out.
But one of the determining points that will be highlighted by Nafissatou Diallo’s lawyers is that Strauss-Kahn cannot claim immunity because he was in New York on private business.
This is where the aforementioned Section 21 of Article 6, referenced by Strauss-Kahn’s lawyer William Taylor in his 25-page motion, comes into play. In fact, it specifies that “the executive head of each specialized agency… shall be accorded… the privileges and immunities, exemptions and facilities accorded to diplomatic envoys, in accordance with international law.” But in the U.N.’s Convention on Privileges and Immunities that was signed in 1946, it is stipulated that these diplomatic envoys benefit from immunity “from legal process of every kind in respect of all acts done by them in their capacity as representative.”
And it is the expression “in their capacity as representative” that is the determining factor. The civil servants of IMF, for example, only benefit from immunity within the parameters of their official business.
Strauss-Kahn’s lawyers will therefore try to argue that Strauss-Kahn’s trip to New York was but the first stage of an “assignment,” during which he traveled Europe trying to gauge the response to the debt crisis in Greece.
Nafissatou Diallo’s lawyers will argue to the contrary, highlighting that his detour to Sofitel was unrelated to his official activities.
Then it will be up to Judge Mckeon to settle the argument….
Next article![]( "Weaklings Need an Enemy")
